• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"

blackberet17 said:
Extract from the Pension Act:

"2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled."

(.... ) Am I the only one reading the first extract as oh, I don't know, something way stronger than a "social contract", IOW, something along the lines of, oh, I don't know, a LEGAL OBLIGATION?
The legislation is clear - what the fight is about is what kind of "compensation" is fairest/makes the most sense.  A one-cheque-as-you-leave system compensates, but very differently than a here's-a-monthly-pension-for-life system.

recceguy said:
The machinations of government are slower than molasses in January, when they want to 'be seen' as interested and doing something, but at the same time, hoping it quietly goes away into the good night.
Unlike when there's political will behind something (oh, and it costs nothing to do).
 
This is going around on FB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjVxhA2IvV0&feature=youtu.be
 
Teager said:
Back in court December 3rd and 4th 2014.
And here's some of what's happening from The Canadian Press:
A federal government lawyer is asking B.C.'s highest court to throw out a class-action lawsuit by Canadian Forces members injured in Afghanistan who say they've been stripped of benefits.

The Attorney General of Canada is appealing a B.C. Supreme Court decision from September 2013 that ruled the lawsuit could proceed for the soldiers who say the new compensation regime is unfair.

Current and former members contend the new Veterans Charter is unconstitutional, and they don't like that the lifetime disability pension for disabled soldiers is being replaced with lump-sum payments.

A government lawyer is disputing the soldiers' claims that a "social covenant" exists between the public and government that ultimately means a duty is owed to the soldiers based on the "honour of the Crown."

Paul Vickery, a lawyer for the attorney general, told the court the government acknowledges the suffering and that veterans deserve respect, but noted the new regime was approved by a unanimous vote of Parliament ....
recceguy said:
Let's hope it moves forward instead of another gov't holding action.
So far, column B.
 
Hmmm, government lawyers deny the Crown has any honour.  We coulda told them that long ago.
 
Schindler's Lift said:
Hmmm, government lawyers deny the Crown has any honour.  We coulda told them that long ago.
The part that bugs me is the assertion by the government  that "honour of the crown"  only applies to natives. Racism much?
 
Wonder how far that money could have gone to addressing the concerns of the involved vets.
Fighting veterans' class-action suit has cost Ottawa $700,000
CBC NEWS
28 Jan 2015

The federal government has spent almost $700,000 fighting a class-action lawsuit by disgruntled, wounded Afghan veterans, newly released figures show.

The figures are contained in answers to questions posed to the offices of Justice Minister Peter MacKay and Defence Minister Rob Nicholson by Liberal MP Stéphane Dion tabled in the House of Commons this week.

The Department of Justice has borne the majority of the legal costs so far, spending approximately $694,070.52 to fight the lawsuit, while the Department of National Defence spent another $3,231.22.

The Department of Veterans Affairs said it did not spend any money in the case before the courts.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, at a press conference Wednesday morning said the legal bill is unconscionable and he called on the government to negotiate a settlement.

Blais said Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau told him a Liberal government would settle the suit and added he was to meet next with NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

Asked about the lawsuit on Wednesday, Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole said "it's the first matter" he looked into after being appointed to the job three weeks ago, adding he couldn't comment further because the case is before the courts.

The ex-soldiers are challenging the government's 2006 overhaul of benefits, claiming the new veterans charter is discriminatory under the charter of rights because it does not provide the same level of benefits and support as the old pension system.

In the government's statement of defence, federal lawyers argue Ottawa has no special obligation to those who've fought the country's wars and that it is unfair to bind the current government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.

The assertion has given the governing Conservatives a black eye among ex-soldiers, who are considered a natural constituency.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighting-veterans-class-action-suit-has-cost-ottawa-700-000-1.2934906
 
How much is salaries that would be paid to Justice's lawyers whether they are arguing in court or sitting at their desks playing minesweeper engaged in professional development?

Always worth asking how the numbers were determined...
 
upandatom said:
Happened to swing by this on my Internet search about VAC today

Looks interesting, but the quality is impossible to read. Is there a link or can you upload a higher res image?

Thanks.
 
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/newspapers/canadawar/veterans_e.shtml

Care for the Wounded and Ill - Canada's Treatment and Pension Policy
The Globe And Mail, 21/11/1944

Upgraded photo to 200 dpi. If unreadable, use link.
 
I didn't want to post this under the Fantino or Mercer headlines to keep the focus on the topic and not the people talking about it. Rick's taking a swing at the Government here, but it begs me the question. How can the Federal Government allow their representatives to argue in court that it has no moral obligation to the Veterans. Is it really the age where ethics have become such a minor part of our government that politicians allow that? You can bet if anyone said that on the campaign trail, the other politicians would use it as a harpoon.

Thoughts?

Taken from the Mercer Report
Three years ago the Harper Government went to court in a fight with Canadian veterans. The government argued that if a disabled veteran was compensated for say, losing a limb, then the government should be able to clawback that money out of their pension. Now thankfully, the court ruled no, the government can’t take pension money away from the disabled because losing a limb is not the same as getting a bonus at work.

Now we find out that once again the government’s back in court, fighting veterans, and this time they’ve spent $700,000.00. And their argument is simple; it’s that Canada has no obligation to veterans whatsoever. None whatsoever. They admit, yes, prior to the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden promised that Canada had a sacred obligation to veterans. But our government is saying that’s no longer true. No obligation at all. Now sadly, for anyone who knows veterans, or disabled ones, this comes as no surprise.

My buddy Paul is a veteran. He lost both his legs in Afghanistan. Every year they make him prove over and over again that his legs are still gone. Four times they’ve said nope, we’re not taking your word for it. You have to prove they’re still gone. Get a note from a doctor. Literally a note saying his legs have not grown back. You know, in case he's pulling a fast one. His friend was shot in the head and has to prove over and over again that he still has no vision in his left eye. His left eye, by the way, is made out of glass.

So the next time you bump into an MP, and they’re telling you how much this government does for veterans, don’t take them at their word. Tell them to prove it.
 
NSDreamer said:
I didn't want to post this under the Fantino or Mercer headlines to keep the focus on the topic and not the people talking about it. Rick's taking a swing at the Government here, but it begs me the question. How can the Federal Government allow their representatives to argue in court that it has no moral obligation to the Veterans. Is it really the age where ethics have become such a minor part of our government that politicians allow that? You can bet if anyone said that on the campaign trail, the other politicians would use it as a harpoon.

Thoughts?

He is always very outspoken against the government and always pushes for the veterans and the soldiers. He is one of the few that isnt biased and speaks factual information and truth. He does it in a very in your face kind of way, without being outright insulting to the Government. Which is very surprising because he airs on CBC.

He (or his writers, assistants, fact finders) is someone you would want to have in the House on your side, he bluntly speaks the truth and doesnt tip toe around it.
 
upandatom said:
He is one of the few that isnt biased and speaks factual information and truth.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this assessment.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have a public figure of Mr. Mercer's stature championing the plight of Veterans, however, I must say that there is some slight of hand to this report of his.  First of all, to the statement he isn't biased - he specifically says "My buddy Paul...." right there he is stating he has personal ties to a friend who is a Veteran, and therefore, there is a degree of conflict of interest.  I'm NOT saying there is something wrong with his friendship, but the fact is, he has a friend who he is standing behind in this Veterans vs. Government issue. Bravo Zulu to his friend Paul for having a friend of influence that helps raise public awareness to Veterans needs.

My statement on the slight of hand to this particular rant is he says, and I quote his verbal report;

"My buddy Paul is a Veteran. He lost both his legs in Afghanistan.  Every year, they make him prove over and over again that his legs are still gone.  Four times they've said "Nope, we're not taking your word for it.  You have to prove they're still gone."  Literally, a note saying his legs have not grown back.  You know, in case he's pulling a fast one.  His friend was shot in the head and has to prove over and over again that he still has no vision in his left eye.  His left eye by the way, is made out of glass."

This statement is rather ambiguous in my opinion. First of all, to the average Canadian listening to this rant, it is wide open to interpretation.  He says every year they make him prove over and over again that his legs are still gone.  Well, WHO exactly is making him prove this? Doesn't say, but the implication is VAC or the Government is making this ridiculous demand of him.  Well, I don't know Mr. Franklin personally, so I can't say for certain what his financial situation is, but I am going to ASSUME that due to his condition, he was medically released from the Forces.  That being said, he would be receiving 75% of his salary from Manulife Financial.  Medically released personnel get 2 years salary from SISIP after release, but if their condition persists or is chronic, they get turned over to Manulife Financial for Long Term Disability benefits that will continue until age 65, with an ANNUAL REVIEW conducted every 12 months thereafter.  Once every twelve months, Manulife Financial sends out questionnaires to ALL of their benefit recipients that include a questionnaire that the member fills out, and a second questionnaire that they bring to their family physician to fill out.  All it is, is them asking the doctor what his professional medical opinion is on the individual concerned regarding their ability to function, work, take care of themselves etc etc.

His comment on "Literally, a note saying that his legs have not grown back, you know, in case he's pulling a fast one" is a bit of sensationalism intended to get the average uninformed Canadian saying "Wow!!! This is terrible! Ridiculous and preposterous!"  In actuality, it is a standard practiced by ALL insurance companies across the board who are paying out LTD benefits to request an annual medical assessment of recipients to ensure they still qualify for benefits.  So, it's a INSURANCE company, NOT the Federal Government or VAC requesting a note stipulating his legs have not in fact, grown back. 

VAC is far from perfect, but they make enough s**t sandwiches to take big bites out of without having implied culpability placed on their shoulders for something that, quite frankly, isn't their burden to bear.  Perhaps the rant should have pointed out exactly who is requesting Mr. Franklin be forced to prove his legs are not going to grow back should have been clearly identified in the rant.  Mr. Franklin paid a helluva price and deserves whatever compensation he gets and then some, but at the end of the day, from an insurance company's point of view, he is no different than one of their benefit recipients who lost limbs in an industrial accident at work here in Canada, and for better or for worse, gets the same paperwork demands for due process, same as any of their other recipients.

I'm sure I'm going to have a big dogpile jump all over me for this, but, as upandatom stated that Rick Mercer speaks "factual information and truth", it's some smoke and mirrors in this rant.
 
reccecrewman said:
Mr. Franklin paid a helluva price and deserves whatever compensation he gets and then some, but at the end of the day, from an insurance company's point of view, he is no different than one of their benefit recipients who lost limbs in an industrial accident at work here in Canada, and for better or for worse, gets the same paperwork demands for due process, same as any of their other recipients.
I think some being critical of "the system" are upset because it's being treated like an insurance system (which, in the case you give, it IS an insurance issue).

reccecrewman said:
I'm sure I'm going to have a big dogpile jump all over me for this, but, as upandatom stated that Rick Mercer speaks "factual information and truth", it's some smoke and mirrors in this rant.
No dumping from me - no issue with seeking the rest of the story (especially when media rarely covers the WHOLE story), no matter how good an individual someone may be.

In that vein, here's Paul Franklin's own version of events, for the record ....
In regards to Rick Mercer's rant from the other day, I was contacted by Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole for a request for a telephone conversation about my file.

Here's my response:

Minister Erin O'Toole,

I have had many issues in my nine years as a wounded soldier and as a vet.

After returning in 2006, the Department of Defence (DoD) did amazing things and worked tiredly on the issue and where VAC (Veterans' Affairs) failed to deliver they stepped up. Upon my retirement "my file" of course went to VAC and to quote a great writer "and this is where my trouble began."

The legion wrote a piece about my struggles in the beginning called the "The Quiet Fight." I personally prefer that method but alas even that method is being taken from me. It would seem that if I fight for myself things may change for me, but not sadly for the 700,000 others.

I have had my wheelchair taken away from me twice. First while in hospital due to lack of payment when DOD and VAC were in argument about who pays.

The second was just last year when upon getting a new chair it was felt by VAC that I didn't get the appropriate paperwork -- which was a doctor's note saying "Due to transformal amputations, Paul Franklin needs a new wheelchair."

During the recent Manulife lawsuit, I was approved of a pension but was not to receive it until a doctor confirmed my limb loss. This is something that has to be done every year presumably until age 65.

My ex and I have separated and I obviously pay child support and help her out. Every year, VAC challenges that fact with an incredibly disturbing letter that implies that I am a dead beat, that asks if my child still lives, and what I do for them. In response, my ex has to write a horrible letter stating what I do.

She suffers horribly from secondary PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), a condition not widely recognized in 2006 and very misunderstood even today.

This is but a glimpse into what is laughingly called "my file" too which in reality is actually "my life."

As to my friend Rick and his rant the other day, I let him tell my story not for my benefit, but for all vets and their families that fight through this horror every day of their lives.

I fear that a conversation with me about "my file" may solve "my concerns" but not the concerns of the 700,000 others. Until we are treated by all parties with the respect, dignity, honour, and compassion we deserve, then I can't in good conscience take a phone call regarding my issues.

-- Paul Franklin, Mcpl (ret)

Amputee Coalition of Canada
Soldier On
Heros Hockey Challenge
 
Think of it as an editorial. It's an opinion.

As to him not being biased, well I think (and I could be wrong) what upandatem meant was "non-partisan" as I' have seen him roast everyone from all political spectrums in his rants.  He did years ago during the ice storm about how much we were getting paid.  But yeah, he has bias.

I'm not sure it's all smoke and mirrors though.  While yes, I suppose one would need a medical re-assessment for certain things, having to do it for something like lost limbs is absolutely the most retarded thing I've ever heard.  Someone, somewhere, high enough should have the wherewithal to realise just how stupid that is and make exceptions, clauses and whatever fine print they want to make certain exemptions.  It isn't complicated nor should it be.  If VAC has operated like this for god knows how long then whoever can effect change needs to be informed or slapped.  If this rant does either, then good. 

I'm not dogpiling on you either because you raise some good points.
 
Just to put this out there:  Not one of us is without bias. 


milnews.ca said:

Well.  That was "straight from the horse's mouth".  It is a shame that our bureaucrats, in some positions, have become so "Black and White" and "By the Book" that they have lost any common sense when dealing with their responsibilities.  Once they have on file a record that says that the person they are dealing with is an amputee, or has a glass eye, or whatever, that will never rejuvenate/grow back/regain functionality, there should be NO requirement to annually verify something so obvious and already documented.  Such actions only prove that there are some people on the Government dole in positions of the Public Service, who are completely brain dead, when they cause more pain and grief to those they should be providing service to, than relief and support. 
 
The fact that they are making it so difficult for someone with just about the easiest injury to prove (nope, legs are clearly not there) it discourages those with harder to diagnose injury from even attempting to file a claim. That might be their goal, when you think about it. If a guy who is missing an eye or a leg has to jump through hoops to prove it every year, how is the guy with a knee injury the docs just can't figure out or chronic back pain from  20 years of humping a ruck, going to fare?
 
Back
Top